Let’s Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument’s

No ANOK, you are incorrect. What Gage did is a joke and he oversimplified the entire thing. And no, he was serious. It was not a demonstration of
anything but his inexperience and zero understanding of physics.

I have not ignored any of Newton's Laws. In fact, I have reminded you time and again that your interpretation is erroneous in regards to the "equal
and opposite" law. Time and time again, you have ignored it, the fact that "equal and opposite" only refers to the forces being experienced on both
objects. It has NOTHING to do with what physically happens to the objects, especially objects of different shape, mass, and construction. So your
entire argument is flawed and you have been reminded time and time again to fix it. But you cannot even get Newton's Third Law correct. So how can
you lecture someone on the laws of physics when you do not even understand it either.

The main networks which distribute nearly all of the news to the smaller ones, have editing rooms where military editors were accredited a few weeks
before 9/11. We have discussed this in the past years here, with links to that info.
I expect those links to be dead by now, as is the case with all inconvenient information that resided on the net.

NIST found out while they were comparing photo and video timestamps taken with devices that were connected to their own NIST atomic clock timing
service, that most news items on 9/11 were held back a few to several seconds before they reached the distributing channels and were aired. That
provided enough time to alter the original material by cutting out material, or to block unwanted news items.

An example is the Cianca photo from the first sign of the sinking of the east penthouse roof line into the main 47 floor roof. His camera was taken as
an example to show in these NIST reports how they calculated the exact, right atomic clock time for the many camera devices with initial wrong time
settings by their owners, in those 9/11 used camera's. Most camera's internal time was set already long before 9/11 a little, to totally wrong.

They compared all Cianca his 9/11 photos in his camera with known atomic clocked events during 9/11, f.ex. the second plane impact, the three
collapses, the seismic records which were luckily enough, also set rigidly to NIST's atomic clock timing service.
And then corrected his wrong time setting. Then all his photo's had the right atomic clock time attached and were then used as such in the NIST
reports. And could be compared to all corrected camera-shot events.

That is why I could use that special corrected timestamp photo of Mr. Cianca to compare the collapse of WTC 7 to his now right, corrected photo
timestamp.
And proved in the LDEO seismic record that a huge, much too high to be naturally caused, additional energy introduction event took place a few seconds
before his photo's right timestamp.
Search ATS for "LaBTop seismic" and you will know it all.
Click the top blue words "LaBTop seismic" suggestion, on top of the first ATS search page, which comes up with "LaPTop seismic" instead. That
second click brings you to the right search results for my screen name.!
Google search (as an ATS search is) always switches "LaBTop" to "LaPTop".

Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
After the BBC reports the collapse early, a few moments later the signal is lost and the anchor says there's technical difficulties. in other words =
they realized they released the scoop early and pulled the plug. its crazy - no one could have predicted that WT7 was going to fall yet here they are
with the story already sat on there desks and prepared for air - before its even happened.

All right, then, here is my suggestion to help put an end to the petty 9/1 arguments- let's get rid of the "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)"
innuendo dropping, because innuendo dropping isn't proof of anything. It's making an unsubstanciated accusation without actually coming out and
saying it.

Case in point- this whole BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 before it collapsed bit, and let's face it, the only reason it's being used it to drop
innuendo that the BBC is complicit in some way. There are lots of possible explanations for this, from announcers simply mixing up the names of the
buildings to overanxious reporters shovelling out any factoid they came across without verifying it first. Deliberately ignoring all the other likely
possibilities and zeroing straight to the conspiracy ones...particularly the "isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)" ones...can't NOT instigate the petty
arguments the OP wishes to put an end to..

this whole BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 before it collapsed bit, and let's face it, the only reason it's being used it to drop innuendo that
the BBC is complicit in some way. There are lots of possible explanations for this, from announcers simply mixing up the names of the buildings

I don't think so Dave. They did not mix up the names of the buildings. Quit inventing false excuses. The BBC has never made that claim.

We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to
fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the
best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're
hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

What happened to the momentum of the top section right after collapse initiation? Did it increase? Decrease? Stay the same?

What basic physics questions lol? How many times have I asked you basic physics questions that you failed to answer, or answered incorrectly?
That's how we knew you were lying about being an electrical engineer, remember both I and bsbray outed you on that. Not to bright to keep digging
yourself a hole.

I think I can gather by your question you are still confused about what conservation of momentum is. Was it you who claimed that it means momentum is
conserved regardless of resistance, or some nonsense like that?

Why don't you explain what conservation of momentum means, and we can then discuss who knows basic physics?

Another last remark about media influence :
As has been noted by several internet writers already a long time ago, it was reasonable easy for military planners to insert their own editors in the
editing rooms of most news agencies who would deliver the 9/11 news on a plate to all the smaller news outlets in the USA and worldwide.
News is first edited, then offered down the chain, even the raw feeds are edited first, to get them on air.
That's one of the reasons I do believe in the authenticity of Rod Siegel of 911Eyewitness proof of huge explosion sounds recorded during the whole day
of 9/11 by himself on a pier at the board of the Hudson river : 911eyewitness.com...

The editing room's planted editors erased all explosion sounds, before they could be aired.
Hundreds of people interviewed, recalled hearing explosion sounds, but only a few video records got out, lately.
They had a firm grasp on all media outlets on 9/11, and most of us at these forums know that very well.

In Feb 2006 NIST felt the need to alter all video timing in their possession, by ADDING 5 seconds.
This was based on "reviewing" the news-agencies provided atomic clock adjusted on-screen "time-bugs" in a sparsely four videos from the WTC 2
impact.
They forgot to mention however a possible main fault introduction in their new theory.
That the raw video footage timing of that day, fed to the news agencies, could have been altered to begin with, by planted army editors, who, like we
know now, were present f.ex. in the CNN headquarters news editing rooms.
We also know now, that these military propaganda arm editors are now planted all over the networks editing rooms, to feed the news as they see to fit
the US National Security, to the US public and consequently to the whole world. There are many threads and posts at ATS regarding these military
propaganda units. US Congress has approved their work, no surprise there. If you shout around the words "National Security" in any country,
passionated "patriotic" representatives of the People with a greedy agenda are always willing to forget any form of democracy ( We, the People.
Remember that phrase?).

EDIT : I forgot to link to the NIST report copy with the Cianca photos, view page 20 from 24 from this PDF : www.checktheevidence.com...

One of them was my famous "Penthouse sinking" photo by Nicholas Cianca, and was timestamp-corrected by NIST, and that corrected timestamp has never
been retracted anymore by NIST, since this report was copied to this above, other site, and thus they could not let it disappear, like they did with
the last 9/11 seismic collapse report made by Dr. Kim from LDEO, which he made for them in 2006, but NIST disappeared it from their reports quickly
after they added it only once and very short, days, to a sub-report. And then they also disappeared all their other seismic sub-reports.
If that's not suspicious?

edit on 6/12/12 by LaBTop because: Added the offsite copy of the NIST report.

In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the
best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're
hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

So how is that different from what I said? Some BBC reporter on the street came across someone saying it was WTC 7 that collapsed and in their rush
to get copy out on the air they missed a few steps. The statement that they tried to reliably check and double check the information they were
receiving is obviously incorrect because it's obvious it wasn't WTC 7 that collapsed.

The BBC admitted they screwed up and they're not sinister secret agents. There's nothing more to see here. Move on to the next conspiracy theory
already.

How many times have I asked you basic physics questions that you failed to answer, or answered incorrectly?

Never. Note that you completely ignoring answers isn't the same as me not answering them or answering them incorrectly.

That's how we knew you were lying about being an electrical engineer, remember both I and bsbray outed you on that. Not to bright to keep
digging yourself a hole.

No I don't remember. Care to post links to where this happened? Or could it be that you have an extremely bad memory and are twisting the facts so
that they fit your world view? Very likely.

What I do remeber, is that once you are confronted with real physics, you stop replying and often leave the thread. Only to resurface some time later
with the same old nonsense.

Just like you did in this very thread, You are confronted with real physics how sagging trusses can cause a pulling force on columns and bam:
denial.

I think I can gather by your question you are still confused about what conservation of momentum is. Was it you who claimed that it means
momentum is conserved regardless of resistance, or some nonsense like that?

How about you answering that question? Or are you not capable of doing that?

Why don't you explain what conservation of momentum means, and we can then discuss who knows basic physics?

Conservation of momentum means the the total momentum of a system remains constant. Yes or no question: Do you think this applies to the models we use
for building collapses?

There's a big difference between what you said. You claimed they made a mistake in the name of the building (a completely new and fabricated
excuse). There were only 3 buildings that collapsed that day. The other buildings in NY which were damaged that day were crushed by the falling
debris.

If you watch the video they repeatedly say "the Salomon Brothers building has collapsed". Also it shows a written text stating "the 47 story,
Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Center has also collapsed". They don't even use the name WTC 7. Did they make a mistake of the
height of the building too?

In the thousands of posts made by you and the other OS supporters you're always demanding accuracy and also ridiculing Truthers for inconsistencies
in some of their statements and theories. Well I think all who support the OS should be held to that same standard. Your statement was neither
accurate or consistent with any factual reports or statements made by the BBC.

Some BBC reporter on the street came across someone saying it was WTC 7 that collapsed and in their rush to get copy out on the air they missed a few
steps. The statement that they tried to reliably check and double check the information they were receiving is obviously incorrect because it's
obvious it wasn't WTC 7 that collapsed.

There are numerous videos of emergency personnel warning people on the street of the eminent collapse of WTC 7. There is even a video where an
emergency worker says there is a bomb about to go off inside WTC 7.

The BBC admitted they screwed up and they're not sinister secret agents. There's nothing more to see here. Move on to the next conspiracy theory
already.

Nothing to see here?

Only the first ever complete collapse of a steel high rise caused by fire. I think you should move on if that how you feel. I still think WTC 7's
collapse is worth further investigation and discussion. And the fact that many people seemed to know it was going to collapse before it happened is
suspicious at the very least.

You claimed they made a mistake in the name of the building (a completely new and fabricated excuse).

Possible explanation equals claim equals excuse.

Edit:

Originally posted by MagicWand67

If you watch the video they repeatedly say "the Salomon Brothers building has collapsed". Also it shows a written text stating "the 47 story, Salomon
Brothers building close to the World Trade Center has also collapsed". They don't even use the name WTC 7. Did they make a mistake of the height of
the building too?

Does the scenario:

Reporter in studio: Can you confirm that the Salomon Brothers building collapsed.
Confused reporter on site who assumes it is one of the smaller WTC buildings that were mostely destroyed: Yes.

sounds possible? To me it does. I have no clue if that actually happened, but we are talking hypotheticals here. It sounds a lot more likely than:

Conspirator1: What the F$%^ why did you sent that report too early!
Conspirator2: Sorry I accidentally pressed the wrong button.

There's a big difference between what you said. You claimed they made a mistake in the name of the building (a completely new and fabricated
excuse). There were only 3 buildings that collapsed that day. The other buildings in NY which were damaged that day were crushed by the falling
debris.

A building had just collapsed. The BBC said it was WTC 7. It wasn't WTC 7. If that isn't a mistake in their identification of the building then I
don't know what else to call it. Did someone change the name of the building on them between the time the plane hit it and the time the thing fell,
or something?

If you watch the video they repeatedly say "the Salomon Brothers building has collapsed". Also it shows a written text stating "the 47
story, Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Center has also collapsed". They don't even use the name WTC 7. Did they make a mistake
of the height of the building too?

So you're saying that it was the obligation of every single person in the world to know WTC 7 was also called the Salomon Bros. building before 9/11?
Or are you saying it was the obligation every single person in the world to be able to recognize WTC 7 on sight? I daresay that if you're shown a
lineup of famous buildings you'd be hard pressed to identify it yourself unless people have already been arguing over it for ten years.

Let's test that theory. Without looking it up, what is this structure, and where is it located?

Move along to the next conspiracy already. There's even less to see here on this now than there was before.

A building had just collapsed. The BBC said it was WTC 7. It wasn't WTC 7. If that isn't a mistake in their identification of the building then I
don't know what else to call it. Did someone change the name of the building on them between the time the plane hit it and the time the thing fell, or
something?

What a ridiculous response. Your answer makes no sense at all. I provided the video above. Maybe you should review it again. The BBC never said WTC 7.
They specifically said the 47 story Salomon Brothers building collapsed. They even said it was due to fire and damage sustained from the collapse of
the WTC Towers. No other 47 story buildings collapsed that day.

So you're saying that it was the obligation of every single person in the world to know WTC 7 was also called the Salomon Bros. building before 9/11?
Or are you saying it was the obligation every single person in the world to be able to recognize WTC 7 on sight? I daresay that if you're shown a
lineup of famous buildings you'd be hard pressed to identify it yourself unless people have already been arguing over it for ten years.

Again, what kind of ridiculous double speak are you trying to push here?

We're not talking about the average Joe on the street reporting this. We're talking about the BBC reporters. It's the obligation of news organizations
to double check the facts BEFORE THEY REPORT IT. Which they claim they did.

Let's test that theory. Without looking it up, what is this structure, and where is it located?

Off topic and irrelevant. I am not a reporter on a live TV broadcast.

Move along to the next conspiracy already. There's even less to see here on this now than there was before.

I will not move on and I find your statement saying to do so very offensive. There is exactly the same to see as there always was. Maybe more so now.

Let's test that theory. Without looking it up, what is this structure, and where is it located?

I'm always happy to venture where truthers fear to tread.

I can't recall the name of it, but It's a never-completed hotel in Pyongyang, North Korea. Probably, it's named after Kim Il Sung, or has some
cheesy name like heavenly sunrise national palace.

IIRC the reason that it sat incomplete for so long is that the concrete work was so shoddy that the elevators could not be installed in the shafts
because the holes in the concrete floors did not line up closely enough. Hilarious.

self fact check:

The Ryugyong Hotel (Korean: 류경호텔) (sometimes anglicised as Ryu-Gyong Hotel or Yu-Kyung Hotel[5]) is a 105-story
pyramid-shaped skyscraper under construction in Pyongyang, North Korea. Its name ("capital of willows") is also one of the historical names for
Pyongyang.[6]

I got the city right, and the hotel function, and I'd say 'capital of willows' is cheesy. Three for three.

Dave, that's two serious mistakes you made in that statement of yours :

A building had just collapsed. The BBC said it was WTC 7. It wasn't WTC 7. If that isn't a mistake in their identification of the
building then I don't know what else to call it. Did someone change the name of the building on them between the time the plane hit it and the time
the thing fell, or something?

1. This is the most serious one : At 17:10 late afternoon on 9/11 there had no building whatsoever just collapsed, and for sure not one nearly half as
high as the already in the early morning collapsed, two 110 floors high WTC South and North towers .

2. The BBC did not say ever on 9/11 it was WTC 7. They said it was "the 47 stories high Salomon Brothers building", which stood firmly upright in the
right background behind the reporter. They never used the term WTC 7, that term was introduced after 9/11.

And it's the combination of sudden loss of network signal (think about interfering military editors in the (only a few) main US networks their
editing rooms, which distributed all 9/11 news further down to the smaller ones, and to the global ones) and the blatantly incorrect news reading with
the just announced "collapsed" building still standing to the right of the reporter that makes it not just a tad bit suspicious.

Especially since that same reporter just identified that HUGE building (that was by far the highest one in the periphery around the twin towers rubble
heap), with its correct name and height. And all the other high risers further away in the same video were certainly no candidate to go down,
that was obvious for all viewers.

So, Dave, who do you think fed that piece of suspicious, too-early news to that BBC news reporter?
Someone in Manhattan, or someone in London? That female reporter defended herself years later, so the answer can be found.
In other words, would you find it more suspicious when that news was fed to her from her headquarters in London, then when it was told to her in
Manhattan perhaps by a firefighter with accurate knowledge of the WTC 7 situation?

Not that your opinion matters anymore to me, since this row of above posts is exactly the kind of petty 9/11 arguments this thread is about.
Introducing half truths and full non-truths, and go on and on about it for many pages.

Only the principle of conservation of momentum still has to be addressed here, which will follow.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.